...according to the link below.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17379

I imagine a few folks will have a comment on this...

Skrat

LOL

That is too funny.

I have 2 points to make...

I don't know how many of you all eat 100 grams of protein or more a day, but I know that I don't....and can't. So that argument is faulty.

As for the use of land for crops...1) crops already produce more than is sold, so using it for feed seems like a good thing, 2) if low-carbers are not eating things like corn, than that reduction can be also used for feed, 3) we eat soybeans and lots of them...so why is soy in the list of "bad" foods?

Anyways....their arguments are not valid. The article is obviously written with a slant. Why don't they complain about the millions of acres used for golf courses. They cause a lot of damage to the enviornment....or how about all the plastic bags used for groceries and trash....or the styrene used to place foods on and in.

*shakes head*

agendas, agendas, agendas

Get to the real problems....please.

Ummm, I eat 150-200g protein a day....

IMHO, if there's not enough land to sustain a population of LCers, then the problem is overpopulation. Low carbers are eating what humans are supposed to eat. Are we supposed to subsist on HFCS just to make environmentalists happy? I think not.

We've had this discussion before, although last time it did have a different focus: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...58&postcount=75

The article above assumes that everyone who takes up low carb as their WOE increases their protein consumption. That wasn't the case with me. I eat about the same amount of protein now that I always have. What I have increased dramatically is the amount of calories coming from fat while decreasing dramatically the amount of calories coming from carbs. Come to think of it, I don't eat all that many eggs, either.
According to the article above, the average protein intake for humans worldwide is 28 grams per day. While this might be enough to sustain the lean body mass of my 50 pound 8 year old daughter, it's not enough to sustain a full grown adult and to hold that up as a standard (or even something that should be considered "normal") is irresponsible. Yes, some people do increase their protein intake when they begin low carbing, but many of those folks were protein deficient to start with.
Slanted? Well...when you work for an organization that supports agriculture (primarily grain agriculature: http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/...08/10/37a747b43 ), it would be hard not to be a bit biased in favor of those you support.

I agree, and I am an ardent environmentalist. The problem is overpopulation coupled with high resource consumption. Most endangered species (both plant and animal) got thay way from habitat loss, regardless of whether that land was cleared for grazing or agriculture or home building. Planting more grains in place of cattle isn't going to bring back dwindling not-so-renewable natural resources.

All from beef?

I guess I should have made myself more clear. The article suggested that all low-carbers eat 100 g of beef protien a day.

I know that I don't. I eat fish, chicken, and beef. I drink protien suppliments to keep my protien up above 100 g. I just know that I could not eat 100 g of protien from beef everyday.

But this is just my opinion.

You all ought to read this thing more carefully before you start taking shots at it



Actually, the article says worldwide consumption of ANIMAL PROTEIN is 28 grams per day. Presumably, total protein intake is somewhat higher.



Again, the article does NOT say that a low-carb diet requires 100 grams of protein from beef, it says it requires 100 grams of animal protein and specifically mentions increases required in meat, dairy, poultry and seafood production to meet such demand.

Presumably, but the article doesn't say that:

Their quote implies animal protein, but doesn't specifically state animal protein when it comes to that 28 grams. I would certainly hope that protein intake overall was higher, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't considering how much of the population is even currently living at starvation levels of food intake; protein, carbs or otherwise.
There are also very few plant proteins that are complete proteins or that provide adequate essential amino acids, so unless that 28 grams is animal protein, it's likely not of the greatest nutritional quality. Regardless of whether that 28 grams is plant or animal protein, it's not nearly enough to sustain a full grown adult or a growing child.

Granted, it could have been edited to be a bit clearer, but careful reading shows that the writer is referring to 28 grams of animal protein. Here is the entire paragraph:

"If all of those people went on an Atkins-style diet, their requirement for animal protein would rise to about 100 grams. A billion dieters each eating an extra 44 grams could not easily be satisfied by giving them a bigger share of current animal protein production. As it is, humans worldwide average only 28 grams per day."



Nowhere in this article are they advocating a diet based on 28 grams of protein. Your assertion that it does so is a red herring that begs the real question. That is, what are the probable ecological implications that would result from a massive, global shift toward a low-carb diet by 1 billion overweight dieters (however unlikely such a shift may be)?

Or...that's what they want you to think (slanted writing). If it's not slanted writing, it would have gotten me a less than stellar grade in writing class. I haven't had time to check their resources but I have to admit to being a bit suspicious of their figures.



Not blatantly, but what I infer from that, especially when they also state that an average Western diet (where they pointedly mention we have the greatest problem with obesity) is that we are eating double what the average person on the planet does and this is somehow excess; even more so if we, heaven forbid, increase that amount of protein to actually sustain our lean body mass or even increase it.



Well..first of all we have to assume that 1 billion dieters are overweight. A fair assumption since they are trying to lose weight, eating disorders aside. Second...those 1 billion dieters are, I also presume, included in those protein consumption figures worldwide. One does have to ask the question of how they got to be overweight consuming between 28 and 56 grams of protein per person per day; obviously it wasn't their protein consumption that got them there. Third...it's quite unlikely that all 1 billion dieters are going to shift to a low carb lifestyle, also presuming that they have to buy or catch/kill their protein and in some economies that would be cost prohibitive, not to mention that low carb isn't for all dieters and I don't recall seeing any movements recently to impose low carb on all persons wishing to lose weight...it is still a free choice last time I checked.
Some other good points have been made in the other thread going on this subject regarding the fact that not all available land is suitable for grain raising. New Zeeland, for example. And that there is currently much land not being used for either cattle or agriculture that would easily sustain cattle, but not agriculture.
IMHO, I consider the above article to be something akin to scare tactics or at the very least alarmist: "If everyone who wants to lose weight switches to low carb instead of the food pyramid, the world will starve!".

Lisa -- Your allegiance to low-carb is apparently affecting your ability to make a well-reasoned argument. The article in question is certainly driven by extremely biased ideology, but your response is no better. Apparently you are refusing to allow the distinction between animal protein and other sources of protein. As a reult you're making leaps of logic that don't make any sense.

Here's an example"



But the article does not say that, does it? Rather it says that we eat twice as much animal protein. There's a difference, isn't there?

Here's another example of misrepresentation:



Again, the article doesn't say that these billion overweight people eat only 56 grams of protein per day; It says they average 56 grams of animal protein. That's an important distinction, isn't it?

Here's another overstatement:



Where in this article is it stated or implied that there is some effort afoot to impose low-carb on anyone, or take away freedom to choose one's diet? Since it doesn't say that at all is it safe to assume that you are engaging in the same "scare tactics" you attribute to the writer of the article?

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm

At least this gives sources for the statistical information (the above article does not).

Based on their statistics, currently animal protein consumption makes up roughly 21% of daily caloric intake on a worldwide average with developing countires (poor populations) consuming the least and industrialized countries (relatively richer populations) consuming the most. Consumption of animal proteins seems to be directly related to income, although not completely so.
They have some interesting views on what could/should be done to keep up with the increase in demand for animal proteins as the population continues to increase along with average incomes to afford that animal protein.
So...based on all this is everyone ready to become vegetarian yet?

This kind of gross exaggeration is misleading and serves only to inflame. While the original article is admitedly biased, it at least offers a semi-detailed hypothesis. And the UN report that you linked to primarily provides data and is remarkably free of strenuous judgement. In completely different styles they are raising issues that ought to be considered carefully.

But, based on your willingness to engage only in exaggeration, misrepresentation, and hyperbole, it would seem that you are incapable of acknowledging even the potential validity of any analysis that supposes to cast your beloved low-carb "WOL" in an unfavorable light.

I'd let this go but for two reasons. First, and most important, the issues raised in the original article are important. And, if one seeks to spread the beneficial health effects of a low-carb diet beyond a limited population of obese dieters and enlightened individuals, it behooves us to address some of these issues intelligently. My second, admitedly petty, reason for pursuing this is that you, Lisa, are a frequent critic of the exaggeration and misrepresentation that accompanies so much media coverage of low-carb diets, and it strikes me as rank hypocricy when you engage in the same practice.

Ummm...I was joking, ya know. Guess I should have followed it with a couple of LOL faces like this:

and it was preceeded by this statement:


The biggest problem I have with the original argument above is not that it raises some important issues about the growing world population and food supply, but that their argument is based on a "what if" that is very unlikely to ever occur, that is "what if all 1 billion dieters in the world turned low carb?"
A more important consideration, IMO, is "what if the world population continues to increase at the current rate unabated?" The world is currently overpopulated and underfed as it is on a whole and the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Low carb dieting is just a drop in the bucket compared to that but perhaps a convenient scapegoat?